web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > Posts tagged "Trump"

GOOD NEWS: A Public Mueller Report Means Minimal Press Spin (Take Advantage of It)

Westlake Legal Group D2NQumjUYAAClcM-620x540 GOOD NEWS: A Public Mueller Report Means Minimal Press Spin (Take Advantage of It) Trump Press spin Mueller report Front Page Stories Featured Story Abuse of Power

At Attorney General William Barr’s Thursday morning press conference detailing the public release of the Mueller report, a young reporter looked up from her notes, cast a steely-eyed glance at Barr, and asked why he was characterizing Trump’s emotional state regarding the investigation.

Barr, explaining to the reporter that the information he relayed was included in the report, shut her down by using her own word — “unprecedented” — against her; i.e. Trump’s emotional state was arguably important given that nothing like what his young administration was faced with (Barr alluded to spying and press complicity as well) had ever been done before.

And there’s your good news, folks. With the public release of the Mueller report, snarky reporting of they type Barr shot down, outlandish speculation, and unethical spin should be mitigated. The public at large — and certainly enterprising Titter journalist — will be able to fact-check what they see and hear in real time.

Obviously, they’re still going to try to tell you what to think. And they already are.

But the American people have the opportunity to decide for themselves if Trump’s emotional state is relevant or if what is contained in the report should lead to impeachment.

When it was revealed that the late Senator John McCain’s aid was horrified that Buzzfeed had published the entire Steele dossier without his permission, it should have been an insight into how these things work. Speculation about a document is the heart and soul of media spin. The dossier was a dark thing that could be speculated about for months and years, weaving a narrative of nastiness that would never be proven or disproven. And it works so long as no one sees the actual contents.

Once the dossier was published, however, everyone could see the emperor was buck naked (or that stupid stories about prostitutes and urine were patently absurd).

It’s the same deal here. Mueller’s findings just are what they are — warts and all, and there are doubtless embarrassing moments for Trump — but at least the press won’t be able to spin them into treason.

And Trump, who spoke to Wounded Warriors today at the White House, seems to be feeling good despite some of what the report will undoubtedly prove about his anxiety over his presidency and his cabinet. A relaxed President Trump told the crowd to applause, “I’m having a good day.”

“We do have to get to the bottom of these things,” he continued. “I say this in front of my friends, Wounded Warriors, this should never happen to another president again, this hoax.”

That last bit is a teaser for what’s to come, no doubt. It likely has to do with prosecution of individuals who (as Barr has also alluded to) may not have had good reason to “spy” on the Trump campaign.

Best of all, the American people can just read the thing for themselves and decide what they think. We’re having a good day, too.

The post GOOD NEWS: A Public Mueller Report Means Minimal Press Spin (Take Advantage of It) appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group trump-thumbs-up-620x358-copy-300x134 GOOD NEWS: A Public Mueller Report Means Minimal Press Spin (Take Advantage of It) Trump Press spin Mueller report Front Page Stories Featured Story Abuse of Power   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

New Tulsi Gabbard ad: Let’s face it, Trump has turned America into Saudi Arabia’s prostitute

Westlake Legal Group new-tulsi-gabbard-ad-lets-face-it-trump-has-turned-america-into-saudi-arabias-prostitute New Tulsi Gabbard ad: Let’s face it, Trump has turned America into Saudi Arabia’s prostitute Yemen war powers wahhabist tulsi gabbard Trump The Blog Syria saudi genocide arabia Al Qaeda

Westlake Legal Group t-10 New Tulsi Gabbard ad: Let’s face it, Trump has turned America into Saudi Arabia’s prostitute Yemen war powers wahhabist tulsi gabbard Trump The Blog Syria saudi genocide arabia Al Qaeda

An outrageous claim. In reality, America has been Saudi Arabia’s prostitute for decades.

The occasion for this spot was Trump’s veto yesterday of Congress’s resolution withdrawing U.S. support for the Saudi war in Yemen. That veto is the logical endgame in a process of deforming the Constitution’s warmaking powers that’s also taken decades to play out. It used to be that only Congress could declare war; over time various presidents asserted unilateral power to send troops into battle without authorization, eventually inspiring a congressional backlash in the form of the Vietnam-era War Powers Act. Last month, for the first time ever, Congress invoked the WPA and passed a resolution retracting military support for the Saudis in Yemen. But because the bill didn’t enjoy two-thirds majorities in both chambers, Trump was free to bat it away and proceed with military assistance to Riyadh.

That is, instead of Congress having sole power to declare war, the president can now declare war and Congress can’t stop him even when it wants to. Not without a supermajority, anyway.

“The decision to keep support for the war in Yemen is perplexing to some members of the administration, considering the president is usually inclined to remove U.S. troops from all conflict zones,” noted WaPo this morning, reporting on Trump’s veto. At Reason, Eric Boehm wonders how “anti-war” President Donald Trump arrived at a moment when he’s waging war against Congress’s wishes.

[O]n Tuesday night, Trump unambiguously backed Forever War. He vetoed a congressional resolution that would have ended American military involvement in the Yemeni civil war—a conflict that has killed an estimated 50,000 people (scores more have died in a famine triggered by the conflict) without having any significant bearing on U.S. national security…

Yes, there are no American troops fighting on the front lines in Yemen, but the Trump administration has been providing logistical support and intelligence to the Saudi-backed coalition that’s fighting the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels. American-flown planes are being used to refuel Saudi aircraft in mid-air, for example. Trump’s own veto statement belies the internal contradiction, with its nod to American “service members” who are very much participants in the bloody, seemingly intractable conflict.

I’m torn watching Gabbard’s ad, thinking on the one hand that it should end with the narrator saying “Paid for by Bashar Assad” and on the other that not nearly enough is said by major politicians about how strange and gross our close alliance with Saudi Arabia is. Right, it’s a matter of realpolitik — the Saudis are the main Islamic counterweight to Iran and the guy in charge there is a kinda sorta force for modernization when he’s not busy ordering the murders of dissidents. But it’ll never not be weird that a president whose intense suspicions of Muslims once led him to endorse a global ban on Muslims entering the United States has chosen the capital of world Wahhabism as his favored regional partner.

Anyway, good luck to Gabbard trying to get traction in a presidential primary with a foreign policy message at a moment when America is involved in fewer wars abroad than usual.

The post New Tulsi Gabbard ad: Let’s face it, Trump has turned America into Saudi Arabia’s prostitute appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group t-10-300x153 New Tulsi Gabbard ad: Let’s face it, Trump has turned America into Saudi Arabia’s prostitute Yemen war powers wahhabist tulsi gabbard Trump The Blog Syria saudi genocide arabia Al Qaeda   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

De Blasio Plans To Sue Trump To Keep Migrants Out Of New York ‘Sanctuary’ City

Westlake Legal Group de-blasio-plans-to-sue-trump-to-keep-migrants-out-of-new-york-sanctuary-city De Blasio Plans To Sue Trump To Keep Migrants Out Of New York ‘Sanctuary’ City Trump sanctuary city Mayor Bill de Blasio immigration Illegal Immigrants Front Page Stories
Westlake Legal Group Approved-Gentiles-620x444 De Blasio Plans To Sue Trump To Keep Migrants Out Of New York ‘Sanctuary’ City Trump sanctuary city Mayor Bill de Blasio immigration Illegal Immigrants Front Page Stories

(Image: Wikimedia Commons)

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has taken a page from the Cher manual on backtracking and vowed to block Trump’s growing determination to send illegal immigrants from crowded detention centers to sanctuary cities like the Big Apple. And he says the law is on his side.

De Blasio made the statement on NY1 after Trump continued to threaten to send undocumented immigrants to so-called sanctuary cities on Monday.

“It’s illegal. It is just plain illegal. We will meet him in court. We will beat him in court,” de Blasio said.

There’s no doubt Trump’s idea — which he reiterated a desire to move on as late Monday —  is a political move; and, while savvy, is not without criticism, as Jason Riley writes at The Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Trump regularly complains that apprehended illegal immigrants are released into society while awaiting their court dates. It’s a legitimate gripe, but shipping immigrants to sanctuary cities would only increase the odds that they don’t show up for their hearings. And it will make those cities even more of a magnet for fake asylum seekers and others who shouldn’t be in the country.

The frustration with cities that coddle illegal immigrants is understandable. Sanctuary policies make life easier for violent criminal immigrants and more dangerous for the law-abiding fellow immigrants on whom they prey most often. Yet the president seems more interested in punishing the Democratic politicians who typically run these cities, even if the results are counterproductive.

There’s also little doubt that the legality of such a move is questionable. Critics contend that the Department of Homeland Security is funded for certain actions — such as processing and detention of migrants — but that funds have not been appropriated for transporting illegals (which would be expensive) nor determining which cities would be be landing spots.

However, as the The Daily Signal suggests, ambiguity in the law works both ways.

Trump is bringing in new leadership for the Department of Homeland Security after forcing out Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen on April 7.

Since the Times and others reported on the legal questions, Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council, a labor union, and former ICE acting Director Thomas Homan both have said the move would be legal.

A former Justice Department lawyer, Hans von Spakovsky, said no specific provision of law prevents it.

“There’s no restriction, there’s no legal limit in federal immigration law that says the Department of Homeland Security can only release detained illegal aliens in particular locations,” von Spakovsky, now a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, said Monday night on “Lou Dobbs Tonight” on Fox Business Network.

“I don’t see anything in the law that would prevent the president from doing this,” he said.

While it’s tempting to see Trump’s plan of moving illegal immigrants “to cities that say they want them,” as Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform told The Daily Signal, as nothing more than a game of political one-upmanship, there’s a practical reality to consider as well.

It’s known that the Obama administration was releasing illegal immigrants randomly and not tracking their movements, and were reticent to provide information as to how many were let go. Trump’s plan, at the very least, will lend itself to tracking how many illegals are being released and where exactly they go, at least initially.

And if de Blasio or any number of other lawmakers in sanctuary cities want to formally litigate the plan (if it ever even happens), they’ll be admitting on record that the situation at the border is more of a crisis than they’ve been pretending.

The good news is that while the White House says the sanctuary city release is an “option on the table,” they’re also adamant that cooperation with Democrats on immigration is preferred.

The bad news is that threatening a lawsuit is generally not a sign of a willingness to cooperate.

The post De Blasio Plans To Sue Trump To Keep Migrants Out Of New York ‘Sanctuary’ City appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group De-Blasio-300x213 De Blasio Plans To Sue Trump To Keep Migrants Out Of New York ‘Sanctuary’ City Trump sanctuary city Mayor Bill de Blasio immigration Illegal Immigrants Front Page Stories   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Was Trump’s presidency worth it if it leads to the election of Bernie Sanders?

Westlake Legal Group was-trumps-presidency-worth-it-if-it-leads-to-the-election-of-bernie-sanders Was Trump’s presidency worth it if it leads to the election of Bernie Sanders? Trump The Blog romney Obama Mitt Romney jonathan last Hillary Clinton binary choice Bernie Sanders

Westlake Legal Group t-9 Was Trump’s presidency worth it if it leads to the election of Bernie Sanders? Trump The Blog romney Obama Mitt Romney jonathan last Hillary Clinton binary choice Bernie Sanders

A provocative what-if — actually, two provocative what-ifs — from Jonathan Last.

Obama voters: If you could go back to 2012, knowing what you know now, would you still vote for Obama?

Because we now know that the timeline created by Obama’s 2012 election meant handing unified control of government to a Republican party with Donald Trump as president. So net-net, would you rather have had Mitt Romney as president and the Republican party kept in a moderate place? Or would you still take an extra four years of Obama, even though it means getting Trump?

Trump voters: If Bernie Sanders is elected president and he is given unified Democratic control of Congress (which is what he’ll likely have if he were to win), will the Trump presidency still have been worth it? Net-net, would you rather have had Hillary Clinton constrained by a Republican Congress in 2017? Or would you still take four years of Trump, even though it means handing the country over to a socialist?

If we could poll this, I’d guess that something like 75 percent of Obama voters would reaffirm their 2012 vote for him whereas 95 percent of Trump voters would reaffirm their 2016 vote for him. Not because Trump fans are so much more devoted than Obama fans but because of the sunk-cost fallacy. Obama voters have had their commitment to O severed by his passage from the political scene so they don’t feel the same pressure to protect their emotional “investment” in him as Trump voters do with a sitting president. If in fact we do end up with President Bernie, some of the Trumpers who claim today that they’re okay with a Sanders presidency as the inevitable result of a Trump presidency will say otherwise a few years from now when they’re getting a snoutful of socialism daily.

Last is making a point about the old canard that elections are binary choices. There’s Trump and there’s Hillary, we were told in 2016; however much you dislike the former, the only alternative is the latter. That’s technically true but largely false, counters Last. If it was a foreseeable consequence that the left would further radicalize as a result of a Trump victory, then the choice in 2016 was more like Trump or Hillary plus an increased probability of a far-left nominee in 2020 plus an even greater probability of a far-left nominee in 2024 if Trump wins a second term and Democrats go insane from their rage. There are more than two variables to the alleged “binary choice.” If you elect a candidate strongly favored by, and inclined to pander to, his own party’s base you need to account for the fact that the other party is likely to respond in kind in future election. If in fact Trumpism ends up making socialism a viable electoral force in national elections, would we have been better off with Marco Rubio, say, as nominee in 2016?

I’m a fatalist so I tend to cope with arguments like that by retreating into the assumption that the two party’s bases will find excuses to radicalize no matter what’s actually going on in politics. For instance, if Last got his wish and Democrats agreed that we should go back in time and make Romney president in 2012, would the Republican Party’s trend towards reactionary populism have been stopped? It would have slowed down for sure: The impulse to back the president on everything he does would have made some of the people we know today as Trump loyalists into Romney loyalists. Sean Hannity would have been a stalwart advocate for Romney’s policies on Fox every night for the past seven years. Certainly the GOP under Romney would be less populist right now than it is under Trump.

But what about five years from now?

Last wants us to look at longer time horizons so let’s look. Imagine that Romney was facing the same sort of circumstances at the border that Trump is right now — no wall, a huge crush of illegals seeking entry in the guise of asylum claims. How would the right-wing populists who worship Trump feel about that? My guess is they’d cite it as the inevitable failures of a weak establishmentarian from the business class who’s not nearly as concerned about illegal immigration as he pretends to be. What we need is a politically incorrect authoritarian, they’d say, a guy who sounds like Donald Trump does when he calls into “Fox & Friends” every Friday morning. Meanwhile, it’s anyone’s guess what Romney’s white-collar pedigree and free-trade policies would have done to affect the Democrats’ drift towards democratic socialism. Would it have given Bernie Sanders extra traction against Hillary in 2016? If not, would Hillary have lost to the incumbent Romney (incumbents are famously hard to beat), further convincing socialists that centrist liberalism is a dead force nationally? What would Romney’s racial legacy have been as the patrician traditionalist from a very white state who ousted the first black president in 2012?

Neither lefties nor righties would have abandoned their efforts to radicalize their parties just because the president was different. Their tactics would have differed dramatically and the time horizons would have differed to some extent but I’m not so sure that the odds of Trump delivering us a Bernie Sanders presidency are necessarily greater than the odds of Romney delivering us a Bernie Sanders presidency. Just like I’m not so sure that it’s not the financial crisis, rather than partisan backlashes to Obama and Trump, that have gifted us with a raft of suddenly viable radical populist politicians.

I think the strongest argument for Last’s position is that an outside presidency like Trump’s has changed people’s perceptions of what’s possible in national elections in ways that having Romney or Hillary in charge simply wouldn’t have. With Romney and/or Hillary as president you’d have people in each side’s base convinced to their chagrin that American politics at the highest level really is limited to a narrow centrist-y ideological band. You can’t be a game-show host chattering excitedly about a “Muslim ban” and expect to get elected in America. We choose our leaders from the same pool of technocratic elites. With Trump’s victory, that’s out the window. Anyone can be president now — the geriatric socialist Bernie, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, anyone. Even in this scenario, where there’s no Trump, I think the Overton window would have moved eventually for other reasons, like hyper-polarization in the age of the Internet and 24/7 news. But certainly Trump hastened its movement. That’s the real extra-binary choice in presidential elections: “Do you want the Republican or the Democrat, and do you want many more American voters open to radical possibilities for leading the country going forward?”

The post Was Trump’s presidency worth it if it leads to the election of Bernie Sanders? appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group t-9-300x153 Was Trump’s presidency worth it if it leads to the election of Bernie Sanders? Trump The Blog romney Obama Mitt Romney jonathan last Hillary Clinton binary choice Bernie Sanders   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

New leader in Alabama Senate primary: Roy Moore, of course

Westlake Legal Group new-leader-in-alabama-senate-primary-roy-moore-of-course New leader in Alabama Senate primary: Roy Moore, of course Trump The Blog teenagers sessions Senate roy moore primary poll Alabama

Westlake Legal Group rm-1 New leader in Alabama Senate primary: Roy Moore, of course Trump The Blog teenagers sessions Senate roy moore primary poll Alabama

As you’d expect, he’s succeeding on the strength of [checks notes] the woman vote.

Westlake Legal Group r-1 New leader in Alabama Senate primary: Roy Moore, of course Trump The Blog teenagers sessions Senate roy moore primary poll Alabama

Women tend to be more religious than men and Moore’s political brand is all about religion, so maybe that’s why? I got nothin’ otherwise.

Back in February, when he was making noise about possibly running again, I argued he’d be DOA in a primary for two reasons. One: This time the party would unite to stop him, from Trump to McConnell to state leaders to even some populist tastemakers who don’t want to risk a repeat of 2017. GOP bigwigs would huddle and throw their weight behind a rival candidate, maybe Bradley Byrne, maybe Mo Brooks, but someone, and Moore would be sunk. Two: Even if that didn’t happen for whatever reason, Alabama’s Republican voters would themselves fear a rerun of the Moore/Doug Jones special election and would rally to some other candidate to avoid it. One way or another, there just won’t be enough of an appetite in the state to roll the dice on Moore again.

What I didn’t count on is that the race might attract prominent outsider candidates like former Auburn coach Tommy Tuberville who aren’t under the party’s control. This poll didn’t measure Tuberville’s support but the more contestants there are in the primary, the greater the risk that the anti-Moore vote will splinter many different ways, propelling Moore towards victory. As for my confidence that the grassroots would reject Moore even if the establishment failed to block him, well, we have some data about that right here in front of us. How good does that prediction look?

Bear in mind that with Trump at the top of the ballot next fall driving massive turnout, it’s highly likely that anyone nominated for Senate by the GOP will win on his coattails. We’re thisclose to Senator Roy Moore after all!

Well … no, not really. He has two massive potholes in front of him on the road to the Senate. One is his favorable rating: This same poll has Byrne at 25/2 in favorability among Alabama Republicans, Brooks at 27/8, and Moore at … 34/29. (Another 33 percent are “neutral.”) Fully 46 percent say they don’t know enough about Byrne yet to have an opinion but just four percent say the same of Moore. He’s leading here purely on the strength of name recognition. A guy who’s barely above water in popularity among his own party, is facing a race against one well-liked congressman in Byrne, and may yet have to cope with competition from Brooks for the populist vote is not winning a primary for a Senate seat.

Which brings us to the other obstacle. Even if the establishment fails to unite behind a rival in the interest of stopping Moore and he ends up finishing first, unless he takes 50 percent of the vote he’ll be forced into a runoff with the second-place finisher. (That’s what happened in the 2017 special election, you may remember.) And there’s no way Moore is taking 50 percent against a multi-candidate field with participants as formidable as Byrne in it. His best-case scenario is that he ends up in a runoff, and the runoff would quickly become a referendum on the question of “We’re not actually going to nominate this guy again, are we?” How does he win that? In a test of Moore vs. Not Moore, Alabamians will remember 2017 and opt for Not Moore. Particularly with Trump goading them to do so in the interest of holding the Senate.

The only wrinkle is that Brooks, who’s in second in the poll, isn’t sure to run and thrives with the sort of populist voter who might prefer Moore as a second choice. If Brooks ends up passing, Moore might be stronger than everyone expects. Although still not strong enough to win. Exit quotation from Twitter pal CuffyMeh, reading this poll: “Looks like Roy Moore is finally getting out of the teens.”

The post New leader in Alabama Senate primary: Roy Moore, of course appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group rm-1-300x153 New leader in Alabama Senate primary: Roy Moore, of course Trump The Blog teenagers sessions Senate roy moore primary poll Alabama   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Bill Weld: Yes, I’m primarying Trump

Westlake Legal Group bill-weld-yes-im-primarying-trump Bill Weld: Yes, I’m primarying Trump William Weld Trump The Blog republican primary gop challenge bill 2020

Westlake Legal Group bw Bill Weld: Yes, I’m primarying Trump William Weld Trump The Blog republican primary gop challenge bill 2020

“Can a pro-choice, pro-amnesty ‘Libertarian for life’ who backed Barack Obama in 2008, thinks the phrase ‘all lives matter’ is ‘nothing but a dog whistle,’ and maintained throughout 2016 that Hillary Clinton is preferable to Donald Trump, truly be competitive in the 2020 Republican Party presidential primary?” wrote Matt Welch back in February, tongue in cheek, about Weld’s announcement that he was forming an exploratory committee.

He forgot to note that Weld also supports gay marriage and a return to the Paris Accord on climate change.

Weld would be DOA even if Trump’s job approval among Republicans wasn’t 90 percent, which it is. It’s almost unfathomable to imagine a sitting president of either party who takes care to pander to his base being credibly threatened by a primary challenge. In all of the famous modern cases of incumbents being weakened by insurgents in primaries — Bush ’92, Carter ’80, Ford ’76 — the challenger succeeded by mobilizing populist rage among the party’s base at the president’s centrism. Trump is rock solid with his own base, forcing Weld to somehow convince centrist casual voters that it’s worth their time to trudge down to the polls on primary day and cast a ballot that’s destined to be meaningless except as a symbolic protest against the president.

I could understand him toying with a presidential run two months ago when Trump’s legal liability from Russiagate was still an open question, figuring there was a tiny chance that Mueller would drop a bombshell that would somehow detonate Trump’s credibility. Any primary challenger who found himself pitted against a president suddenly facing a major scandal would benefit — not enough to win, in all likelihood, but maybe enough to pull 35-40 percent of the vote and send the proverbial message. Now that we know there won’t be any criminal charges from Mueller, though, his strategy eludes me. Is he counting on some other criminal probe of the president in the Southern District of New York to deliver the coup de grace instead? Does he just have nothing better to do?

Sounds from this clip like he’s betting everything on New Hampshire, which makes sense. It’s next door to his home state of Massachusetts, so the locals know him, and it’s a state where unaffiliated voters can vote in either primary, which seems like it might benefit Weld. Chances are that if you’re unaffiliated you’re more centrist than the average lefty or right. Why not grab a Republican ballot on primary day and cast an anti-Trump vote for Weld? The obvious answer: Because, er, Democrats are going to be holding their own primary on the same day that’s about 8,000 times more important to deciding the next president than the Republican primary will be. What unaffiliated voter in his right mind would pass on the chance to help decide the shape of the Democratic presidential contest in order to help Bill Weld lose to Trump 89/11 instead of 90/10?

Eh, at least there’ll be a place for regular GOP voters who are anti-Trump to park votes.

Weld 2020 from Weld 2020 on Vimeo.

The post Bill Weld: Yes, I’m primarying Trump appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group bw-300x159 Bill Weld: Yes, I’m primarying Trump William Weld Trump The Blog republican primary gop challenge bill 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Trump’s new 2020 strategy: Run against Ilhan Omar

Westlake Legal Group trumps-new-2020-strategy-run-against-ilhan-omar Trump’s new 2020 strategy: Run against Ilhan Omar working Trump tlaib The Blog pelosi ocasio-cortez Ilhan Omar class AOC 2020

Westlake Legal Group i Trump’s new 2020 strategy: Run against Ilhan Omar working Trump tlaib The Blog pelosi ocasio-cortez Ilhan Omar class AOC 2020

A basic rule of politics, turbo-charged in an age of intense negative partisanship: The more villainous your opponent is, the higher your side’s turnout will be. It worked like a dream for Trump in 2016 but there are no easy villains in the current crop of Democratic candidates. The closest thing they have is Bernie Sanders, I guess, but Bernie’s too much of a grandpa to project villainy despite his ideological tendencies. He comes off as an eccentric yet beloved college professor who should have eased into emeritus status a few years ago more so than a storm-the-ramparts revolutionary.

Who else? Elizabeth Warren? Meh. She’s the librarian who scolds you for talking too loudly. Kamala Harris? Harris was a prosecutor. She put bad guys away! Beto?

Beto’s not a villain. He’s a furry.

Trump likes his villains like he he likes everything else, from “central casting.” AOC would have done fine — she’s radical, pugnacious, clearly hates the right, and seems to believe utterly in the inevitable victory of socialism. She’s also a living reminder that America’s future is certainly less white and almost certainly more left-wing than it is now. But Ilhan Omar meets all of those same criteria and is a devout Muslim prone to saying crankish things about Israel, “the Benjamins,” and the supposedly suspect loyalties of supporters of the Jewish state. She’s also a refugee, someone to whom Trump can point and tell righties that supporting softer asylum policies will eventually lead to them being governed by more Omars and fewer Dan Crenshaws.

What does “Make America Great Again” mean to voters if not reversing the economic and cultural tide of early 21st century life? Well, then, find a prominent Democrat who best embodies that tide and run against that person. If Omar hadn’t been so willing to share her thought-farts about Israel that Democrat would have been Ocasio-Cortez. As it is…

Mr. Trump and his team are trying to make Ms. Omar, one of a group of progressive women Democratic House members who is relatively unknown in national politics, a household name, to be seen as the most prominent voice of the Democratic Party, regardless of her actual position. And they are gambling that there will be limited downside in doing so…

Privately, Mr. Trump’s advisers describe Ms. Omar as his ideal foil. Her remarks about the power of the pro-Israel lobby in the United States, combined with her role in a progressive contingent of freshman House Democrats who have sparked intraparty battles, have been treated as a gift by Republicans.

Trump aides and allies say they are pleased that some of the Democratic hopefuls for the 2020 presidential nomination are defending her against the president’s attacks, claiming they think it will be damaging for them in the general election.

That was published in the Times a few hours before this new Trump tweet, which essentially confirms its thesis:

Omar as the “leader” of the Democratic Party. The interesting thing about that is the terrible dilemma it creates for Pelosi and the eventual Democratic nominee as to how fiercely to defend Omar from Trump’s attacks. On Friday night, after he posted his Twitter video about Omar’s 9/11 comments, progressives on the platform demanded that the 2020 candidates and other party leaders speak up on Omar’s behalf against what they thought was deliberate incitement by the president — but not generically, they insisted. They wanted those professing to stand with her against Trump to defend her *by name* to show that they won’t be intimidated politically into keeping their distance from her. Pete Buttigieg initially posted something generic about Trump’s video…

…and then scrambled 20 minutes later to mention Omar specifically after lefties complained:

That’s what Trump wants, to force Dems to hug Omar ever more tightly. David Frum noticed the strategy and warned Democrats not to fall into “the Ilhan Omar trap,” as if they have any choice if they want to remain in good standing with progressives:

Omar, in her turn, has been a target of extremist criticism, some of it verging on incitement. She should be free to express her thoughts about Jews, about 9/11, about her distrust of the democratic opposition in Venezuela without fear of harm. But now the combined operations of Trump and the ultra-progressive edge of American politics have put them beyond normal political criticism within the Democratic Party, sticking her co-partisans with responsibility for whatever outlandish remark next tumbles from her lips.

It cannot be pleasant for Omar’s colleagues to have to wonder and worry what that next remark will be—knowing that Donald Trump and his Twitter feed will be waiting to blame all Democrats for the provocations of one. But by not putting themselves on record about Omar when they could, Democrats now find themselves bound to her for the duration. This problem will get worse, and its political consequences will become ever more costly for Democrats who want to win national elections and govern the country.

Here’s what’s waiting for them among progressives if they take Frum’s advice:

Pelosi did eventually speak up in Omar’s defense but it’s not coincidental that she was on “60 Minutes” last night insisting that the AOC/Omar wing of the House caucus is “like five people.” Just like it’s not coincidental that Steny Hoyer keeps running around complaining to audiences that “three people” in the freshman class seem to get more attention than the dozens of others elected last fall. That’s how they’re going to play both sides here: They’ll spend one percent of their time expressing solidarity with Omar when she pops off sporadically about something and 99 percent of their time emphasizing that she’s an extreme outlier among Democrats. That’s the only way they can even partially counter Trump’s message that Omar’s the de facto leader of the party, if not the party as it is today than the party as it’ll be tomorrow.

The post Trump’s new 2020 strategy: Run against Ilhan Omar appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group i-300x153 Trump’s new 2020 strategy: Run against Ilhan Omar working Trump tlaib The Blog pelosi ocasio-cortez Ilhan Omar class AOC 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Cher: My city and state can’t handle an influx of illegals!

Westlake Legal Group cher-my-city-and-state-cant-handle-an-influx-of-illegals Cher: My city and state can’t handle an influx of illegals! Trump The Blog sanctuary city los angeles Immigration and Customs Enforcement immigrants illegal democrats Cher California

Westlake Legal Group c-2 Cher: My city and state can’t handle an influx of illegals! Trump The Blog sanctuary city los angeles Immigration and Customs Enforcement immigrants illegal democrats Cher California

I don’t want to overstate how much I enjoyed this tweet but I kinda feel like it singlehandedly justifies Trump’s entire presidency.

Eighteen months ago she was willing to take illegals into her own home, notes the Wrap. Wha’ happen’?

Don Jr (and many other righties) duly dunked on her for last night’s change of heart but somehow the man in charge missed it, consumed as he was with the important question of what Boeing might rename the 737 MAX. He needs to correct that oversight today. Seventy years of Baby Boomer history have been building to a moment of peak campiness in which President Donald J. Trump trolls Cher over his immigration policies on the world’s worst social-media platform, the most dystopian thing I can think of not involving nukes, the plague, or zombies. Politics in this era is half reality show and half variety show so naturally Cher must have a cameo eventually. He owes us this. Flame her.

Maybe he and Cher could compromise by agreeing that another blue district, like Seattle, should take the illegals instead. Seattle’s mayor sounds okay with that:

In Seattle, we know that our immigrant and refugee communities make our city a stronger, more vibrant place. Our immigrant neighbors make up more than 18 percent of our population, and 21 percent of our population speaks a language other than English at home. They create businesses and jobs. They create art and culture. They help teach our kids, serve in law enforcement and the military, and lead our places of faith.

Our immigrant and refugee neighbors have helped Seattle become the fastest-growing big city in the country and become home to some of the world’s most iconic companies. And we know that today’s immigrants are tomorrow’s U.S. citizens who should have the chance to contribute to the economic, cultural and civic life of Seattle — and our nation.

“Seattle is not afraid of immigrants and refugees,” she sniffs, in which case it seems like we have a solution in search of a problem here. Especially since any illegals who don’t want to stay in Seattle, which presumably is most of them, will just hop a bus and end up in Cher’s backyard within a day or two. As the mayor of one Massachusetts city said about Trump’s proposal of dumping illegals on sanctuary cities, “Fine by me. But does he realize that the moment after people get ‘placed’ they’ll start moving to wherever they want to go? Every city has an open border.”

There’s also the minor problem of there being no money appropriated for DHS to actually do this, even if they could surmount the legal problems and liability fears for ICE involved in transporting immigrants across long distances:

“It makes no sense,” said John Sandweg, an acting ICE director in 2013 and 2014 in the Obama administration, adding that it would violate federal law by diverting money “for political purposes.”

“At a time like this, when ICE is just overwhelmed by the number of Central Americans arriving, having to divert further resources to send a political message is outrageous,” he said.

Sandweg said the government “would pay big money” for the White House’s plan to deliver migrants to sanctuary cities. In addition to transportation costs, officials would have to assign immigration agents to escort them to their destinations. Currently, migrants usually buy their own bus or airline tickets.

Unworkable policy but a great episode of The Show. Here’s Sarah Sanders being grilled about this yesterday on “Fox News Sunday.” Exit quotation: “Let’s put some of those people into their communities and into their towns, and see if they are OK then with that same impact.”

Update: Come on. He can do better than this.

The post Cher: My city and state can’t handle an influx of illegals! appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group c-2-300x153 Cher: My city and state can’t handle an influx of illegals! Trump The Blog sanctuary city los angeles Immigration and Customs Enforcement immigrants illegal democrats Cher California   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Cher: So, Uh, We Really Can’t Take In The Migrants, Los Angeles Is Full

Westlake Legal Group AP_17244722082326-620x380 Cher: So, Uh, We Really Can’t Take In The Migrants, Los Angeles Is Full Trump sanctuary cities immigration Illegal Immigration Front Page Stories Featured Story Cher

Undocumented students join a rally in support of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA program outside the Edward Roybal Federal Building in downtown Los Angeles Friday, Sept. 1, 2017. President Donald Trump says he’ll be announcing a decision on the fate of hundreds of thousands of young immigrants who were brought into the country illegally as children in the coming days, immigrants he’s calling “terrific” and says he loves. Trump told reporters Friday, using a short-hand term for the nearly 800,000 young people who were given a reprieve from deportation and temporary work permits under the Obama-era DACA, program. (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)

Has anything exposed the left’s hypocrisy quicker than Trump’s plan to send migrants to sanctuary cities? Love or hate the guy, as political strokes of genius go, that one ranks near the top.

But don’t take it from me. Let Cher show you why:

I’m pretty sure, without doing the math, that this is almost exactly the same argument the Trump administration has been making regarding the entire country. Look at it this way, Cher: you feel some responsibility for your city because you live there. Trump feels some responsibility for the entire country because it’s his job. So, unless you’re ready to start choosing which cities you believe can afford to absorb illegal immigrants — along with the logistical and ethical reasons why — perhaps you’ll take a minute and try to understand the argument for why the country struggles with a massive influx of immigrants unwilling to go through legal channels and therefore unable to be adequately planned for.

Additionally, there’s another strange, 180 degree turn Democrats are taking on this issue. They seem to have decided, following Trump’s pronouncement, that simply releasing migrants into American cities will make the country less safe. This is certainly a new twist for the open borders crowd.

In case you were unaware what fans Dems were of that kind of policy a few years ago (when it wasn’t going to land in their own backyards), here’s a really great thread on what the Obama administration was doing regarding redistributing illegal migrants throughout the country.

It’s a long thread (and you should definitely read all of it), but here are a few of the most telling entries:

It starts to look like some on the left don’t actually care about the migrants that much, and certainly don’t want to live among them if they don’t have to.  But they’re ok with the political game as long as most of the migrants are sent to Boise or Kansas City or someplace like that.

While some sanctuary city leaders are spitting fire over Trump’s idea, they’re still insisting — through clenched teeth — they’ll welcome migrants. But it’s likely only because they know Trump isn’t likely to follow through on the idea. But he did beat them at their own game. And boy did they show how they truly felt about immigrants and whether or not they believe the situation at the southern border is a crisis. And in record time.

The post Cher: So, Uh, We Really Can’t Take In The Migrants, Los Angeles Is Full appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group cher-300x300 Cher: So, Uh, We Really Can’t Take In The Migrants, Los Angeles Is Full Trump sanctuary cities immigration Illegal Immigration Front Page Stories Featured Story Cher   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Pelosi Demands Trump Remove 9/11 Video From Twitter To Save Omar’s Life (Or Something)

Westlake Legal Group pelosi-demands-trump-remove-9-11-video-from-twitter-to-save-omars-life-or-something Pelosi Demands Trump Remove 9/11 Video From Twitter To Save Omar’s Life (Or Something) Video twitter Trump pelosi omar Front Page Stories Censorship cair 9/11
Westlake Legal Group kathy-griffin--620x351 Pelosi Demands Trump Remove 9/11 Video From Twitter To Save Omar’s Life (Or Something) Video twitter Trump pelosi omar Front Page Stories Censorship cair 9/11

An image of Kathy Griffin holding a fake beheaded effigy of Donald Trump that apparently did not qualify as inciting violence. (Image: screengrab TMZ)

The vide0 of Rep. Ilhan Omar’s (D-MN) glib comments to CAIR about what happened on 9/11 (“some people did something”) spliced together with images from that day that President Trump’s official account tweeted — stirring up a two days worth of hysterics from Democrats that the video was inciting violence and Omar’s life was in danger — has been unpinned from the top of his twitter feed.

It’s unclear if that happened because Speaker of the House Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) demanded Sunday it be removed or if the Speaker simply capitalized on it’s unpinning, but Pelosi has officially declared it must be taken down to ensure Omar’s safety.

Pelosi, who was traveling in London, issued a statement saying she had spoken with congressional authorities after Trump’s tweet “to ensure that Capitol Police are conducting a security assessment to safeguard Congresswoman Omar, her family and her staff.”

“They will continue to monitor and address the threats she faces,” the speaker said. She called on Trump to discourage such behavior.

“The President’s words weigh a ton, and his hateful and inflammatory rhetoric creates real danger,” Pelosi also said. “President Trump must take down his disrespectful and dangerous video.”

As streiff wrote earlier today, it’s rather remarkable Democrats would defend Omar since the Congresswoman’s own rhetoric hasn’t done their party any favors (and she doesn’t seem to care much, frankly).

But they’re doing so much more than simply defending her: they’re willing to look utterly foolish in order to do it. Especially when considering Democrats, and those identifying as Democrats, have spewed so much hate since roughly the summer of 2016 that a member was shot and almost killed on a baseball field and there didn’t seem to be nearly as much hand-wringing over inciting violence. Here’s a handy video detailing some of that rhetoric.

As for Omar herself, she and Kathy Griffin (of the detestable photo above that we should also never forget), apparently share a victim playbook. Which is to say, when they say something absurd or flippant or ridiculous or hateful and get called on it, they immediately blame the person checking them for putting them in danger.  There’s a real lack of personal responsibility in that kind of behavior. And a real lack of character.

There’s nothing rational or logical to hang onto here — Kathy lecturing on the 1st Amendment while Pelosi demands Trump remove a Tweet — and it’s getting to the point that Omar, Griffin, AOC etc. may just need to be ignored if they can’t come to the table and behave themselves as though they have some self-awareness and empathy. Because, as Southerners say of paying attention to people that make no sense, that way lies crazy.

The post Pelosi Demands Trump Remove 9/11 Video From Twitter To Save Omar’s Life (Or Something) appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group pelosi-national-emergecy-300x162 Pelosi Demands Trump Remove 9/11 Video From Twitter To Save Omar’s Life (Or Something) Video twitter Trump pelosi omar Front Page Stories Censorship cair 9/11   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com